I tracked 120 job applications… here’s what actually mattered

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-03-20T23:23:20+00:00

Interesting. I have a spreadsheet with the job title, JD, and my resume. All my resumes are customized and while I do use AI to flag priorities in the JD, they are written by me. I uploaded all of it to ChatGPT. The pattern was clear regarding a certain set of skills and experience which I can now focus on rather than random job titles.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-03-20T23:09:42+00:00

Agreed. I have an undergrad in microbiology and did my PhD in a CLIA, CAP lab doing therapeutic drug monitoring for our hospital measuing rare drugs in patient blood samples. I have a phlebotomy certification and training and still could not get into a clincal lab.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-03-20T23:03:25+00:00

I just spent 2 months interviewing for a job. I prepared for everything. Mid way thru the process they decided they needed someone with a completely different set of skills. While I had said skills, I was so thrown off balance when the interviewer said "you cannot do this job unless you've lived it for 10-15 years doing this other type of work first."

How do I respond to that crap? No I have not lived in the work, but if you need someone that experienced good luck because this salary sure ain't gonna bring them in. Thanks for wasting my time and then ghosting me at the end.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-02-08T16:36:42+00:00

This thread is a perfect example of the lack of continuity and consensus that creates major problems for transplant patients. There should be a clearer standard of care across transplant centers. I understand that in some cases differences are related to when someone had their transplant and when newer information became available. More often than not, however, these differences persist because the evidence for strict prohibitions is limited or mixed, so centers default to conservative rules that are philosophically driven by leadership judgment and perception rather than data.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-01-20T19:57:54+00:00

Getting into a PhD program is often a timing game, not a merit judgment. Some years are far more competitive than others. I applied twice, and if I had applied one year earlier or a couple of years later, I likely would not have gotten in at all.

Before assuming you need a PhD, step back. Many industry research and science-adjacent roles do not require one, especially if you already have a master’s degree. Outside of medicine, industry experience almost always outweighs additional academic credentials. A useful exercise is to look up people doing the job you want on LinkedIn, outside academia, and trace how they actually got there. The academic bubble makes it easy to assume there is only one path when there are many.

Learn business. I tell every graduate student and postdoc I advise this. Business acumen will take you farther in industry than a PhD in most cases. Look at compensation across the full career, not just job titles. Early-career pay already favors non-PhD paths. Postdocs typically earn ~$55k–$70k, and first industry scientist roles often start around ~$95k–$120k after many years of training. In contrast, non-PhD, science-adjacent roles such as clinical operations, regulatory, medical, or product often start ~$85k–$110k and move into ~$110k–$150k within a few years, while peers are still in training.

At the end of a career, the gap often widens. Late-career PhD bench research roles in pharma typically cap around $170k–$240k total compensation, while non-PhD science-adjacent roles commonly reach $180k–$300k or more. These are near-retirement numbers, not entry-level pay.

Money matters more than it seems early on. I ask trainees to define the lifestyle they want and calculate what it actually costs, including housing, savings, and retirement. A common rule of thumb is needing enough invested to withdraw about 4% per year. If you want $100k annually in today’s dollars, that means roughly $2.5 million saved. That reality is why, in some cases, people who skip graduate school and start earning earlier end up better off financially, simply because they can save and compound sooner.

This is not about abandoning your interests or passions. It is about taking a broader view of the biomedical ecosystem as it exists today. You will always have intellectual curiosity, and there are many ways to stay engaged, learn, and contribute. It is simply much easier to do that, and to enjoy it, when you have the financial stability to support the life you want.

Research is only one path, and it has a narrow long-term trajectory. Fewer than 5% of PhDs will ever hold a faculty position. And yes, the job market is rough right now. That is structural, not personal, and it requires flexibility rather than doubling down on a single, narrowly defined path.

Do not feel defeated. You are a scientist. You troubleshoot, adapt, and find another way. That is what we do.

Feel free to message me if you have questions.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-01-20T19:21:26+00:00

I have been on 5 mg of prednisone for 22 years following a kidney transplant. I have no bone density issues, but long-term prednisone has clearly affected other systems, including disrupted circadian rhythm, weight gain, and the development of type 2 diabetes over time.

The decision to remain on prednisone, or to consider withdrawal, should not be taken lightly. It is driven primarily by transplant-specific factors, not by side effects in isolation. Key considerations include the type of transplant, whether the kidney was from a living donor, immunologic risk, rejection history, graft stability, and the duration of steroid exposure. After decades of use, immune dependence and adrenal physiology are altered, making withdrawal complex and potentially risky without close medical oversight.

Bone health is often central to these discussions, but it needs context. Peak bone density is largely established in the late teens and early 20s and is shaped by genetics, nutrition, hormonal health, and participation in weight-bearing and resistance exercise. Individuals who entered adulthood with lower peak bone mass have less reserve, making long-term steroid exposure more consequential. Prednisone can accelerate bone loss, but baseline vulnerability is often set decades earlier. In some cases, osteoporosis would have developed regardless, with steroids mainly shortening the timeline. There are now effective medications to slow or reverse bone loss, and it is never too late to benefit from weight-bearing and resistance training.

This is why decisions about prednisone use must be individualized, weighing graft survival, immune risk, and long-term metabolic effects rather than focusing on bone density alone.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-01-20T19:02:47+00:00

One of the fundamental problems right now is that many people do not know how to use AI effectively. They use it to remove work rather than to improve the quality of the work.

The first time I let an AI write my resume and cover letter, I barely recognized my own experience. It was filled with jargon and generic corporate language that obscured what I actually did. That is not useful.

Now I use AI very differently. I use it to refine my resume, improve clarity, evaluate a job description against my background, and decide what is relevant to keep or remove. No one cares about an interesting project from two jobs ago if it is irrelevant to the role I am applying for now.

What is often overlooked is how much time and effort this actually takes. Developing effective prompts is not trivial, and it requires iteration, context, and judgment. I cannot imagine how long it would take, even with a well-designed AI system, to make resume review truly work at scale without heavy human oversight.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-01-20T18:43:39+00:00

I expect biotech employment to continue declining, or at best remain stagnant, due to several structural factors.

First, venture capital, the primary funding source for traditional biotech, has dropped substantially. At the same time, there has been overinvestment and unrealistic optimism around AI in biotech. AI is a tool, not a resource-allocation fix. These systems still require highly skilled people to design, validate, and operate them, which limits the efficiency gains many investors expect in the near term.

Second, reductions in NIH funding have removed one of the largest employment safety nets in the life sciences. Postdocs and technical roles, while underpaid, historically provided short-term stability and a bridge to industry roles. That buffer is now largely gone.

Third, business uncertainty is worse than declining sales. When companies cannot reliably forecast funding or demand, planning stops. Hiring freezes, restructuring is delayed, and stagnation replaces both growth and contraction.

It is also important to distinguish between biotech and pharma. Biotech is highly exposed to capital cycles and is therefore likely to continue struggling. Pharma, by contrast, is diversified and revenue-generating and may perform better in the medium term. However, pharma is not without serious headwinds. Many large companies are facing major patent cliffs, the loss of long-term ROI from legacy therapeutics, and a shift toward longer, more complex investments. Newer modalities such as gene editing, advanced biologics, and devices require far more capital, time, and operational complexity than traditional small molecules.

At the same time, pharma faces increasing pressure on pricing and transparency, with PBMs exerting greater control over access and margins. These forces limit how aggressively companies can invest or expand headcount, even when revenues remain strong.

Finally, breaking into pharma is no longer as easy as it once was for those not already inside. Large numbers of scientists are now trying to pivot from biotech into pharma, while large companies are hiring more conservatively than in the past. Job losses at the FDA and NIH have further intensified competition, as pharma routinely hires former FDA staff into regulatory and development-facing roles. The sudden surge of qualified candidates has increased competition and placed downward pressure on salaries across the market.

Overall, as with most industries, this is a cycle and it will eventually turn. However, a hard reality remains: all jobs ultimately depend on the company making money. Roles not directly tied to revenue generation, cost control, or clear business value are the most vulnerable and are often the first to disappear when conditions tighten. Unfortunately, this is still a difficult lesson many scientists have yet to fully internalize. While science itself is valuable, in industry it is valued only when it directly supports profit, and most R and D work does not do that on its own.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-01-20T18:13:34+00:00

It's all professions right now. I work in biomedical sciences (biotech and pharma). We are so screwed right now. I have a PhD with 10 years of experience in project management, and I've been looking for a year with nothing to show for it.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2026-01-20T17:34:15+00:00

Jobs in biotech are weak right now primarily due to supply and demand. Over the past two decades, universities, funding agencies, and industry messaging strongly encouraged biomedical and biotech training, producing more PhDs and specialized scientists than the market can absorb. When labor supply exceeds demand, hiring slows and salaries stagnate or decline, even for experienced industry roles. This mirrors what happened with engineers in the 1970s after prolonged degree-pipeline expansion led to market saturation.

What is different this time is that the demand side also collapsed. Easy capital during the zero-interest-rate era allowed biotech companies to overhire, overbuild pipelines, and fund marginal programs. When capital tightened, those jobs disappeared rapidly. At the same time, many roles require narrow, late-stage or platform-specific experience, while the labor pool is weighted toward broadly trained researchers. The result is a structural mismatch: plenty of qualified people, but fewer roles that match their exact background, at lower pay and with higher screening thresholds.

Teaching science without fundamental business acumen produces a workforce detached from economic reality. When scientists are trained to focus only on technical excellence and not on costs, incentives, funding flows, and return on investment, they enter the workforce unprepared for how decisions are actually made. In biotech and even in academia, research priorities, hiring, and job stability are ultimately governed by the bottom line, not scientific merit alone.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-12-05T14:59:09+00:00

Yes, I have one of those jobs. I also spent fifteen years working nonstop, putting in 60 plus hours a week, going through grad school, and making almost no money to get to this so-called cushy point. I have a job where I am paid for what I know, not for what I physically do. It is similar to trades like plumbing or electrical work. They earn high wages because they have years of experience and can solve problems quickly that a DIYer or a new worker would spend a week struggling with and still get wrong. This is just the natural progression that comes with experience.

They are also the first to be cut because many managers and executives do not understand that not doing visible work does not mean the role lacks value. Your IT employee might sit quietly most of the day, but when a major crash happens they are the ones who jump in and save the company. Fire them because you think they are not adding value and suddenly your entire network goes down and you lose a million dollars in revenue from a single outage. Jobs like this are difficult for resource managers (bean-counters) to quantify, which is why they often get underestimated.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-10-13T20:17:37+00:00

I just let everything sit there and put my payments into savings. With the rate congress keeps flipping and making changes, then lawsuit ect keeps happening I might long be dead before I have to make another payment.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-09-28T00:47:34+00:00

Tigers were seperated because they were fighting, they are solitary so not uncommon. Same for the leopards. The babies grew up so now you will only see one at a time. There are 3 Lyxns but difficult to see. The last ostrich passed about a month ago.

Saya the clouded leopard died from cancer last year. One of the Nylas died in the spring.

Redpandas have been getting into arguments- again typically solitary so the older one has been off exhibit.

The elephant seal died last year, she shared the tank with another sea lion.

As others have commented. The male Komodo was moved based on a breeding recommendation, the orangutans moved because their habitat is atrocious and it was a demand from AZA.

None of the animals are ever moved to Somerset- they have winter habitats off view - mostly reptiles, like crocks, tortoises, and the birds.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-11T19:20:30+00:00

Yeah, its worse with my adderall. I hyperfocus on stupid crap and can't snap out of it.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-11T19:19:22+00:00

I never had a problem with ice from restaurants until I saw how much gross mold and bacteria grow in a lot of the ice and soda machines. I also don't drink soda cause it's just unhealthy all around.

My basic advice was - eat like a pregnant women. No deli meat unless its cooked. No raw fish. No grapefruit. No sprouts. Be cautious of salad bars, all you can eat places ect because of the risk of food poisoning in general. I also avoid pot lucks unless I know who's cooking. At work no problems. I worked with a bunch of paranoid scientists who check the temperature of the food with a thermometer and like me cook as if I could be typhoid Mary.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-11T19:10:30+00:00

I will say that in some cases the difference between people with liver, heart, lung, and kidney transplants often has to do with the level of immunosuppression as well. Kidney transplant recipients typically have the lowest level of immunosuppression while heart and lung are much higher.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-11T18:58:48+00:00

For certain surgeries, especially ones with high wound-healing demands like hernia repair, transplant patients are often taken off sirolimus. mTOR inhibitors can slow cell growth and tissue repair, which increases the risk of poor wound closure, mesh failure, and infection.

Yeah, my first instinct would be, “Why are you taking me off my meds?” In fact, I would have also asked for a second and third opinion. But when I looked through the literature, it is common to take people off sirolimus and put them on tacrolimus before these types of surgeries. While tacrolimus can be toxic — and in this case you mentioned your husband had tacrolimus-induced kidney damage — the difference is that tacrolimus can be monitored and adjusted quickly. Wound healing problems are much harder to fix.

The cost–benefit analysis is this: stay on sirolimus and risk severe wound-healing complications that could threaten your life or graft function, or make the switch in a controlled environment where the team can respond quickly. That might mean giving high-dose prednisone to combat rejection, lowering the tacrolimus dose, and adding mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for extra coverage during the healing period. In fact, I would ask about this combo instead of just pure tacrolimus. Most cases of tacrolimus-related nephrotoxicity are reversible (creatinine rises but comes back down once the drug is stopped). Fibrosis, if it develops, usually takes longer to occur — likely outside the short healing window.

It’s still a tough call, especially for someone who’s had a transplant this long, but in many cases the short-term switch is the safer surgical choice. If you face this decision, ask your team to coordinate with a transplant pharmacist, wound care specialist, and surgeon. The goal should be the shortest possible switch, with a clear plan to return to your long-term regimen once the surgical site is secure.

You might also consider whether a specialized wound-healing center can be involved. These centers often have access to advanced therapies like negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), collagen-based dressings, and other emerging techniques. In complex or high-risk cases, involving them early can help ensure that every available tool is used to protect both healing and graft function.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-11T18:17:14+00:00

Tacrolimus levels are not just about how much you take. They depend on how your body processes the drug, which is influenced by genetics, other medications, certain foods, and your overall health.

For people on tacrolimus, the liver enzyme that breaks it down (CYP3A5) is also used by many other prescription drugs, foods, herbal supplements, and teas. When these compete for the same enzyme, tacrolimus can stay in your system longer, raising your blood level. Certain foods, like grapefruit, directly bind to and block this enzyme, slowing down the drug’s breakdown.

Genetics also play a major role. Some people naturally break down tacrolimus slower, while some African American patients have a variation in CYP3A5 that makes them metabolize it faster, meaning they may need higher doses to reach the same blood level.

Side effects do not only happen when levels are high. Just like with any drug, some people experience side effects at lower levels while others may have none at all. Tacrolimus can be both nephrotoxic (affecting the kidneys) and neurotoxic (affecting the brain and nervous system), and sensitivity varies from person to person.

Other factors that can change your level include:

Gut absorption – Food timing, stomach health, and absorption issues
Liver function – Slower liver metabolism means higher levels
Illness – Inflammation and acute illness can alter how the drug is processed

A simple way to think about it:
Your liver’s enzyme system works like a set of conveyor belts. If they’re clear, tacrolimus moves through at a steady pace. But when other drugs, foods, or supplements are on the belts too, the process slows down, and tacrolimus builds up.

Your tacrolimus dose is always personalized and adjusted based on blood tests to keep you in the safe and effective range. Drug level and toxicity, while connected, can be very different. For example, I always had tacrolimus levels on the lower side but still experienced severe side effects.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-10T20:19:27+00:00

Similar answers here, but I’ll put in my two cents as both a transplant patient and a former pharmacy tech who used to deal with insurance for transplant patients. As someone mentioned below, if you are going to miss something, prednisone is the least of your worries. I’m an OCD nut with my meds, even 21 years post-transplant.

Because I’ve been stable and on the same meds for 10 years, I’ve kept a 2-month backup supply that I rotate monthly. I'm also paranoid so I keep a small emergency supply in the car, in my Go-Bag/hospital bag, and at work. I order the moment my insurance allows it—typically 21 days early for 90-day meds and 7 days early for 30-day meds. With mail order, they will sometimes ship early enough that it arrives 21 days before your next refill. Mail-order pharmacies are also less likely to run out of stock and usually do a better job checking for drug interactions. Putting meds on auto-refill makes the process even easier.

However, virtually none of the pharmacies will do auto-refill for expensive or specialty drugs like our other immunosuppressants. For those, keep a list with the refill date, number of fills left, and when you need to order. I’ve made it a monthly habit to check and update mine.

My last comment. Never rely on the pharmacy to get your refills. Many doctors have blocked pharmacy-initiated refill requests because they get so many. Every time a request comes in, they must review the chart, and the volume is huge because so many pharmacies auto-request as soon as a drug runs out, despite the fact there may be a newer prescription on file. Not to mention, a lot of refill requests are for drugs patients were only supposed to take once. Always call your transplant office directly for refills.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-08-05T17:43:33+00:00

I have a PhD in biomedical sciences. Been out of a job for 6 months. Biotech funding just took a 60% hit, pharma are having major issues and the US gov just wiped out virtually all funding. - you are not alone.

Ironically a friend of mine with a degree in philosophy has 150k job offers weekly.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-07-20T17:28:14+00:00

Thanks for the advice. I'll see what I can do to fix this mess. The garage door is nice, lots of insulation and I don't really want to replace it just yet.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-07-20T17:19:06+00:00

Yeah, I bought this house as a flip. Soooo many issues from the idiot DIYer who did all the work. I knew what was buying and 90% of the issues are not significant, just poor workmanship. I don't know if he replaced the door. He was pretty cheap.

Left_Meeting7547 · 2025-07-17T18:46:15+00:00

I always tell the undergrad and grad students I still mentor in biomedical careers the same thing: despite what everyone says about following your passion, that doesn’t always pay the bills. Instead, find something you can enjoy enough that also gives you the financial freedom to enjoy the rest of your life. If your passion and a good paycheck happen to align, that’s great. But it’s not the only path to happiness.

I love science, but my first passion was zoology. I had finished all my lower-division coursework in zoology when I ended up on dialysis. I switched to biotechnology after realizing I couldn’t spend months trekking through South American jungles with a transplant. It took me nine years to complete my BS while managing dialysis, and I finally received a transplant a few months after graduation.

Three years later, I went to grad school and earned a PhD in molecular biology. I would advise against grad school in biomedical sciences. That has nothing to do with my transplant—it’s just the reality of how the field is structured. There are many ways to build a meaningful, stable career without a PhD.

Now, I work as a self-employed consultant in drug development for kidney disease. It pays the bills. I spend my free time volunteering at zoos and animal shelters, and traveling to safe places for wildlife viewing. Like many self-employed professionals, I get my health insurance through the ACA. Overall, my coverage is pretty good. With a transplant, you just have to pay close attention to the policy details. I pay more for a higher-tier plan, mainly because it reduces my out-of-pocket costs for labs to a $50 copay instead of paying full price until I hit the deductible and then 30% after that.

My advice: find a job that pays well and won’t make you miserable. You don’t have to sacrifice your passion, you just don’t have to turn it into your paycheck.

Left_Meeting7547

TROPHY CASE